Not sure what you are shooting, but I'm doing action (read basketball) in bad light (read very small HS gyms). My only lens options on my 1DIII are the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 135mm f/2.0 L. I generally shoot wide open and certainly never narrower than about f/2.2. SS is 640 - 800 which is needed to stop action.
In order of fast target acquisition I rank them 135, 85, 50. The IQ ranking is the same. If I can get the distance necessary from the action to use it - the 135 is an amazing indoor action lens. Some of the gyms are so small that getting camera to subject distance can be a problem. Example: last night the distance from the baseline to the gym wall was 6'.
The gap in speed and IQ between the 135 and the 85 is nowhere what one would expect given the price and reputation differential. The 135 maybe 10-20% "better" depending on how that is defined, but often I can't really tell the pix apart in post (other than the field of view).
I've been disappointed with the 50 and rarely use it now. I'd hoped to get up close under the basket shots with it, but it just doesn't seem to move fast enough. I'm still trying though. The 85mm is a true bargain and frankly so is the 135. I haven't considered the 35mm because I am trying to isolate person/action against a complex background.
Again, don't know what you are shooting, but in my book the 85 is an absolute steal and the 135 is the best deal going in L lenses.
Thanks Robert - I will mostly be using the lens for shots of moving subjects.
Most recently I am looking to shoot at the annual night time winter costume parade, I take a flash, but fast AF definitely helps. Last year I shot it with my 1D3 which totally rocked, and this year will be with 5D2 and 1D2n. I used my 24-105 w/ a flash and it was very decent. I got photos that I really liked of people bicycling past out of the dark, street portraits, etc.
Anyway, that's the idea for the 85. Same type of stuff, but better subject isolation.
I agree with Robert. I own all three (135, 85, 50) and use them in low-light indoor sports. I would rank them as #1 135/2, #1.5 85/1.8, and #4 50/1.4. No typos in my ratings.
mco_970 wrote:
How does the focus accuracy and speed of the 85 1.8 compare to the 50 1.4? Is the 85 better in low light conditions?
I am not crazy about the 50, and am considering selling some lenses to pick up a 35 1.4 and having the 85 1.8 along side of it. I do have an OM 50 1.2 that I like, so I'd still have a good 50 in the cupboard.
faster and better for the 85 1.8, very, very noticeable difference (although most copies seem to need MFA, of course same goes for 50 1.4 and even in worse ways with that one since that one is more prone to needing different MFA at different subject distances and it has so much random play it is hard to even settle on what MFA to use)
and yes the 85 1.8 does have a lot of longitudinal CA so near wide open it gets lots of PF, white uniforms will certainly be prone to bring it out even with indoor lighting, probably about the most PF you'll see from any lens, sharp lens though, good contrast, low lateral CA; the 50 1.4 also has quite a lot of PF, although my suspicion is the 85 1.8 has even more still, especially for sure comparing 1.8 to 1.8 and not 1.4 to 1.8.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Avoid blowing out the white and super bright tones at the very largest apertures when using the 85mm f/1.8 and you'll be fine.
1. you don't have to blow out white to make longitudinal CA show up, it can appear in images where nothing is close to being blow out, although blow outs, lots of light certainly doesn't help since you get more energy and more hitting the F/B oof zones plus you can also get blow out fringing potentially on top of everything else
also
2. sometimes when shooting sports proper exposure means slightly blowing the brightest parts of white uniforms
anyway don't be afraid to use it as you need to use it but, yes, it is about as PF prone as lens made all the same
it does clear up as you stop down, anyway on the one hand don't freak out, just use it as you need too, but all the same it is one of the most PF-prone lenses (oddly the 300 f/4 non-IS L also has a lot of PF and while I am at it the 70-200 2.8 IS v1 has a lot more than 2.8 non-IS and the 300 2.8 IS has virtually none)
mco_970 wrote:
I will not be disappointed to see some CA at wide apertures, but hopefully it clears up as the lens is stopped down?
Oh, it does clear up! It's terrible at 1.8 and 2.0. Cut back by about half at 2.2, but still considerable. By 2.5 it's cut back significantly. At 2.8 to 4.0 it's still there but at it's lowest level.
skibum5 wrote:
the 85 1.8 does have a lot of longitudinal CA so near wide open it gets lots of PF ... probably about the most PF you'll see from any lens, sharp lens though, good contrast ... the 50 1.4 also has quite a lot of PF, although my suspicion is the 85 1.8 has even more still, especially for sure comparing 1.8 to 1.8 and not 1.4 to 1.8.
I have both those lenses and agree with what you say here.
I have seen BAD purple fringing of the 50 at 1.4. Don't know if it's worse than the 85 but it may be, or atleast they're very similar for purple fringing at wide open.
I use both on a 40D and IV in a low light studio environment and I have to say that neither stands out in my mind as better than the other for IQ or focus speed...if one is better I'd have to pixel peep etc to put my finger on it.
However I do stick to ISO 200 or less, use strobes for the light source...with a max aperture of f4.
John Patrick's ratings are right on. The 85 f/1.8 is a gem, and you can do fine with a 35/85/135 trinity with a non-L middle term if you don't care to stretch for the 85L. The 50 f/1.4 is lousy in low light - the 35L is a revelation in comparison. I like the 50 focal length, though, and would love to see an improved 50 f/1.4 for the street.
Same type of stuff, but better subject isolation.